Samsung-Apple, Upper Deck, Raymond: Intellectual PropertyVictoria Slind-Flor
April 17 (Bloomberg) -- Samsung Electronics Co. began its attack on patents Apple Inc. has asserted in a $2 billion case by trying to convince jurors that the iPhone maker exaggerated claims about inventions allegedly copied by the Galaxy maker.
Samsung, trying to avoid a repeat of two years ago when jurors found infringement and awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages, is calling on witnesses with smartphone technology expertise, including engineers from Google Inc., to argue that some of Apple’s technology is so obvious it shouldn’t have been patented.
The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 12-cv-00630, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).
For more patent news, click here.
Trade Secrets/Industrial Espionage
Upper Deck Says Executive Trading’s Secrets Claim Unprovable
Upper Deck Co., the Carlsbad, California-based trading-card company, told a judge that Executive Trading LLC cannot prove it stole trade secrets related to politics-themed trading cards.
Executive Trading, based in Tacoma, Washington, failed on all seven claims over the California company’s World of Politics cards, Upper Deck said in an April 7 filing in federal court in San Diego.
Executive Trading argued that Upper Deck violated a confidential disclosure agreement related to political trading cards. The next hearing in the case is set for June 12.
The case is Upper Deck Co. v. Executive Trading LLC, 12-cv-01923, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego).
Patent Office Says ‘Boston Strong’ Too Common to Be Trademark
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected all nine applications to register “Boston Strong” as a trademark, ESPN reported.
A coffee company, a brewer and a T-shirt seller were among applicants seeking a trademark on the phrase, which became a symbol of the city’s recovery from last year’s bombing at the Boston Marathon, according to ESPN.
A trademark examiner said the phrase was so commonly used in everyday speech by a variety of sources that it can’t function as a trademark, ESPN reported.
Raymond Ltd. Wins Indian Trademark Fight With Raymond Jewels
Raymond Ltd., an Indian fashion and fabric retailer based in Mumbai, prevailed in a trademark fight with Raymond Jewels, a fabric manufacturer in the city, India’s Economic Times reported.
The Bombay High Court ordered Raymond Jewels to pay a fine to Raymond Ltd. or have its director go to jail for seven days, according to the Economic Times.
Raymond Jewels was given 45 days to change its name, the newspaper reported.
Laguiole Villagers Seek Presidential Intervention Over Trademark
Residents of the French village Laguiole asked the nation’s president to intervene in a trademark dispute with Holding Robert Clergerie SA’s Forge de Laguiole unit, the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper reported.
They removed the Laguiole sign at their village’s entrance after Forge de Laguiole registered the name as a trademark to be used with knives and told villagers they could use it only to promote the forge’s products, according to the Guardian.
A French appellate court said in an April 4 ruling that the village hadn’t been robbed or suffered an attack on its reputation because of the trademark registration, the newspaper reported.
The mayor of Laguiole sent a letter to President Francois Hollande seeking his intervention, according to the Guardian.
For more trademark news, click here.
Oregonian Pleads Guilty to Android App Copyright Conspiracy
An Oregon resident accused of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement related to applications for mobile Android devices pleaded guilty in federal court in Atlanta on April 15.
Thomas Pace of Oregon City will be sentenced July 9, according to court papers. He and fellow conspirators were accused of conspiring to reproduce and distribute more than 1 million unauthorized copies of Android apps, with a value exceeding $700,000.
He faces a maximum five-year prison term and $250,000 fine and must pay full restitution to victims of his infringement. The case is U.S. v. Dye, 1:14-cr-00026, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).
For more copyright news, click here.
To contact the reporter on this story: Victoria Slind-Flor in San Francisco at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at email@example.com Stephen Farr, Charles Carter